The act of recognition of the baby on the part of the father at the circumci-
sion ceremony corresponded to a similar process at baptism. Baptism was not
only a christening, but also a rite of acceptance into the immediate family and
the community at large. Babies born out of wedlock or whose paternity was un-
certain were also reminded of their status at the baptism ceremony. The ab-
sence of the infant’s mother from the baptism ceremony centered attention on
the paternal act of public recognition of the baby.^46 The shared social aspects
of both rites of passage have frequently been overlooked because of the focus
on the male aspects of the circumcision ritual, which have no parallel in bap-
tism. I would suggest that in spite of the undeniably male aspects of circumci-
sion, it is, first and foremost, an initiation rite into a social and religious group.
Both circumcision and baptism can and should be studied as rites of passage.
One central difference does exist, however, in the transformation undergone
by the infant in the two rites. Whereas Christian children were not considered
members of the Christian religion before they were baptized, Jewish children
were considered Jewish, though uncircumcised. In other words, the difference
between being a Jew before and after circumcision was smaller than that be-
tween being unbaptized and Christian. Despite this apparent difference, how-
ever, uncircumcised Jews could not participate fully in Jewish rituals, and as
such, circumcision did change their religious status. Furthermore, Jewish boys
who died prior to being circumcised were circumcised before burial, albeit in
a manner different from their living brothers. It was believed that this would
expedite their entrance into the Garden of Eden, much as baptism was sup-
posed to pave the way to heaven.^47
the father and the circumciserThe two other main participants in the ritual were the baby’s father and the
mohel(circumciser). Although legally, the father was obliged to circumcise his
son, this task was almost always assigned to the circumciser, who was under-
stood to act as the father’s emissary.^48 It was considered a great occasion for a
father to circumcise his own son, as it rarely took place.
The father’s role in medieval Ashkenaz does not seem much different from
what we know of earlier periods. The main difference is that while in other di-
asporas the father held the baby on his lap during the circumcision ceremony
and was known, in some cases, as the av brit,^49 in Ashkenaz the ba’al brit held
the baby during the ritual. The description of the ritual, as presented in
Mah·zor Vitry, above, has the father taking his son from the ba’al brit, reciting
the required blessings and then passing the infant back to the ba’al brit. The
father usually hosted a large feast after the ritual and sometimes sent gifts to all
his acquaintances present at the celebration.^50
The circumciser’s role did not change much over time either. A central pre-
requisite for any circumciser was that he be well trained. One of the contexts
in which circumcisers are mentioned in the halakhic literature is in discussing